Amendment 13 bad for farmers, gun owners | Guestview

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a bad bill in search of support needs a good name. This tactic is all too familiar to anyone who spends any time following politics.

After all, who could oppose the “America is for Americans” Act or the “Housing Opportunities Made Equal” (HOME) Act? Who is anti-“Dreams” or against affordable healthcare? Never mind the actual policy and all its unintended consequences.

Florida’s constitutional amendments might not include flowery titles, but the same game is afoot this year with a seemingly simple measure that puts gun owners and farmers in its crosshairs.

That’s why a coalition that includes Florida Farm Bureau, the National Rifle Association, Florida Cattlemen’s Association, and Unified Sportsmen of Florida has come out against Amendment 13.

Why would farmers and sportsmen care so much, you might ask, about greyhound racing? Because as usual, the devil is in the details. And in this case, voters won’t even get to see those details on their ballots.

On first glance, Amendment 13 seems like one of the simplest among a notoriously complicated list. It ends gambling on dog racing in Florida – not dog racing itself, though one could predict the end result would be roughly similar.

When they go to the polls, voters will see only a short summary of 13: That it “Phases out commercial dog racing in connection with wagering by 2020” and “Other gaming activities are not affected.”

But if the Amendment passes, another sentence will be permanently inserted into Florida’s constitution: “The humane treatment of animals is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida.”

Even the notorious 2002 “Pregnant Pig Amendment” went only so far as to say that “Inhumane treatment of animals is a concern of Florida citizens.” (Emphasis added)

Like everyone I know who grew up in the country or on farms, I was raised to be good to all of God’s creatures. Contrary to popular stereotypes, to visit a family farm or hunting club in North Escambia or elsewhere in Florida is to find carefully managed and humane conditions. There’s no doubt that treating animals kindly is one of our fundamental values.

But inserting this vaguely defined language into the state constitution threatens to open a cause of action based on whatever outside groups might define as “inhumane” – which could include farming and hunting themselves.

Putting a blanket ban on an entire industry into the state’s constitution is questionable at best; Throwing farmers and sportsmen into danger with overly broad language is unquestionably reckless.

Let me be clear – I think there’s something wrong with people who don’t feel a twinge of conscience hearing about dogs being abused, no matter where you stand on the issue overall. It’s not hard to see why there’s support for a ballot-initiative solution after the legislature has thus far failed to take action.

But to insert wide-reaching, poorly defined language into the constitution instead of seeking serious legislative solutions is the height of big-government irresponsibility. Voters in Florida – particularly the Panhandle, where so many livelihoods depend upon farming and so many cherish our Second Amendment rights – would be wise to vote no.

Rebekah Bydlak is the executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Spending, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing government spending and debt. This guestview does not reflect the views of her employer. She is a North Escambia native, Cantonment resident, and former state house candidate.